That Pesky Separation Thing
Buon giorno. No, I'm not filing for separation from anyone. This "separation" thing is the alleged "separation of church and state". What I have to say seems contradictory at first glance, so I have to lay some groundwork.
While listening to a debate between apologetics expert Matt Slick at CARM (any relation to John Slick who played keyboards for Petra, Matt? Addendum: "No", he told me.) and an atheist he had to take a position that seemed contradictory to the atheist. (But that's typical of atheists, they want things their way, and do word games so they can play "gotcha!") The question was whether or not atheism is intellectually feasible. The "Infidel Guy" was obviously squirming and getting antagonistic, so he tried to box Mr. Slick in because he would not give a standard "yes or no" response. But to give that kind of response would have been dishonest. Yes, it's feasible only on the same level as pink unicorns are feasible; his "yes" was qualified. When explored further, we see that atheism is intellectually absurd. After all, they really have no philosophy, they simply attack the Bible and belief in God.
In another broadcast, Matt had an expert on in American history, William Federer. He pointed out that all state constitutions mention God, and that many actually had taxes to support religion. Also, it was originally mandatory to declare that you believed in God in order to hold public office.
"Do you have a point to all this, Cowboy Bob?"
Funny you should ask that, just when I'm getting to the point.
Do I believe in the separation of church and state? No — and yes. The "no" part is the constitution: "The church shall be separate from the state, and the school from the church". Yep, it's right there! Problem is, this is not a quote from the American Constitution. Look up the USSR constitution, or click here. There is no "separation" in the "establishment" clause in the US Constitution.
Here's my "yes" part: You should know that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That means, no federal law shall establish a state religion; you can believe or disbelieve what you want to, capice? Not only do I detest the idea of a state-run religion, but I do not want people being forced to proclaim faith when they have none in order to get political power.
That's where corruption comes in.
When a religious institution is the repository of political power, people will say and do whatever it takes to get that power. Say that you believe in God, Jesus, the Resurrection, whatever, and you can be in the office you're seeking. People who do not believe will say that they do believe.
Let me simplify this, I'm getting in too deep. I don't want anyone teaching the Bible to kids in school because he has to, even though he does not believe it. Can you imagine what kind of garbage he can put into their heads?
I cannot end this without saying something else, that there is no "freedom from religion" in this imagined "separation" clause. The push by groups like the ACLU or Freedom From Religion to eradicate all expressions of faith from public life is nothing less than the rule of the many by the few. That is tyranny.
"As the Supreme Court has stated, "The First Amendment was never intended to insulate our public institutions from any mention of God, the Bible or religion. When such insulation occurs, another religion, such as secular humanism, is effectively established."
— Lee County decision
While listening to a debate between apologetics expert Matt Slick at CARM (any relation to John Slick who played keyboards for Petra, Matt? Addendum: "No", he told me.) and an atheist he had to take a position that seemed contradictory to the atheist. (But that's typical of atheists, they want things their way, and do word games so they can play "gotcha!") The question was whether or not atheism is intellectually feasible. The "Infidel Guy" was obviously squirming and getting antagonistic, so he tried to box Mr. Slick in because he would not give a standard "yes or no" response. But to give that kind of response would have been dishonest. Yes, it's feasible only on the same level as pink unicorns are feasible; his "yes" was qualified. When explored further, we see that atheism is intellectually absurd. After all, they really have no philosophy, they simply attack the Bible and belief in God.
In another broadcast, Matt had an expert on in American history, William Federer. He pointed out that all state constitutions mention God, and that many actually had taxes to support religion. Also, it was originally mandatory to declare that you believed in God in order to hold public office.
"Do you have a point to all this, Cowboy Bob?"
Funny you should ask that, just when I'm getting to the point.
Do I believe in the separation of church and state? No — and yes. The "no" part is the constitution: "The church shall be separate from the state, and the school from the church". Yep, it's right there! Problem is, this is not a quote from the American Constitution. Look up the USSR constitution, or click here. There is no "separation" in the "establishment" clause in the US Constitution.
Here's my "yes" part: You should know that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That means, no federal law shall establish a state religion; you can believe or disbelieve what you want to, capice? Not only do I detest the idea of a state-run religion, but I do not want people being forced to proclaim faith when they have none in order to get political power.
That's where corruption comes in.
When a religious institution is the repository of political power, people will say and do whatever it takes to get that power. Say that you believe in God, Jesus, the Resurrection, whatever, and you can be in the office you're seeking. People who do not believe will say that they do believe.
Let me simplify this, I'm getting in too deep. I don't want anyone teaching the Bible to kids in school because he has to, even though he does not believe it. Can you imagine what kind of garbage he can put into their heads?
I cannot end this without saying something else, that there is no "freedom from religion" in this imagined "separation" clause. The push by groups like the ACLU or Freedom From Religion to eradicate all expressions of faith from public life is nothing less than the rule of the many by the few. That is tyranny.
"As the Supreme Court has stated, "The First Amendment was never intended to insulate our public institutions from any mention of God, the Bible or religion. When such insulation occurs, another religion, such as secular humanism, is effectively established."
— Lee County decision
Comments